Author Topic: Cislunar station gets thumbs up, new name in Presidentís budget request  (Read 36180 times)

Offline Olaf

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Germany
  • Liked: 365
  • Likes Given: 208
https://twitter.com/RussianSpaceWeb/status/992400686364192770
Quote
A critical international partner meeting to discuss lunar gateway contributions, the latest development schedule! DETAILS, ENLARGED GRAPHICS: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/insider-content.html Ö

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15587
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 4802
  • Likes Given: 623
https://twitter.com/RussianSpaceWeb/status/992400686364192770
Quote
A critical international partner meeting to discuss lunar gateway contributions, the latest development schedule! DETAILS, ENLARGED GRAPHICS: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/insider-content.html Ö

Wow. Seven new development projects. Not one of them a Lunar lander. :-(
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 154

Wow. Seven new development projects. Not one of them a Lunar lander. :-(

Or the ability to refuel one, no?  Or is that the "utilization module?"
Recovering astronomer

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5316
  • Viewed launches since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1969
  • Likes Given: 1319
Cislunar Space Habitation Ė Paving the Way to Mars

Orbital ATK
Published on May 9, 2018

Orbital ATKís vision for the next step toward human space missions to Mars employs our flight-proven Cygnus advanced maneuvering spacecraft as a human habitat in cislunar space, the region between the Moon and Earth. In the early 2020s, we would launch the initial habitat on NASAís SLS rocket. Featuring a modular design, the habitat would serve both as a destination for crewed missions and as an unmanned testbed to prove-out the technologies needed for long-duration human space missions. The habitat is also envisioned as a base for lunar missions by international partners or commercial ventures. With additional habitation and propulsion modules, the habitat could be outfitted for a Mars pathfinder mission.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PSF2Lmvi5s?t=001

Tony De La Rosa

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6178
  • Liked: 3970
  • Likes Given: 5461
New LOP-G article:
Quote
The Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway: an unneeded and costly diversion
Quote
Two components have emerged in NASAís plans to return to the Moon. The first is to establish a human tended space station in lunar orbit. Originally called the Deep Space Gateway, this program was renamed the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway (LOP-G) by the Trump Administration. The second component is to return humans to the surface of the Moon and establish a lunar base. Thus far NASA has been short on details regarding the latter.

But can we afford to do both components? The answer is a resounding no! Returning humans to the lunar surface is the primary goal of the Trump Administration and is the consensus goal. It is a goal that will inspire the public and the next generation of scientists and engineers. LOP-G is an unneeded and costly diversion that should be promptly relegated to the dustbin of history.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3494/1
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6178
  • Liked: 3970
  • Likes Given: 5461
One point made in the above article could have been expanded upon:
Quote
In lunar orbit, the crew would be subjected to the deleterious effects of radiation (double that of LEO) and microgravity. These conditions would require frequent crew rotation. But if crews went directly to the lunar surface, they could stay for lengthy periods of time. They would be protected from radiation by a habitat covered by lunar dirt, and lunar gravity (16 percent of Earth’s gravity) is bound to be less harmful on the bones and muscles than micro-gravity.

But how much less harmful?

Lunar gravity is much closer to Martian gravity (0.38G) than either zero-G (LOP-G) or Earth at one G.  It would be very useful to add that data point to our low gravity human tolerance testing.  Three points (0G, 0.16G, and 1G) would be much more informative relative to Mars 0.38G than just the two bookends.
« Last Edit: 05/14/2018 08:53 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9588
  • Liked: 1340
  • Likes Given: 850
Interview with ESA's Thomas Reiter on the Lunar Orbital Platform:

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9588
  • Liked: 1340
  • Likes Given: 850

Offline Yxalag

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 2
Full video from May 24th presentation at Marshall Space Flight Center about the Gateway.


Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 279
If it's still stored, could ICM be used as the PPE?
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Online erikdurn

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Florida
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 0
Full video from May 24th presentation at Marshall Space Flight Center about the Gateway.



Very informative. Thanks for the link!

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • USA
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 10
If it's still stored, could ICM be used as the PPE?

Not suitable. No refueling capability, chemical-only propulsion, no power supply, and probably wouldn't handle the thermal and radiation environment. Plus, since NASA apparently wants multiple PPEs for tugs/other stations, you don't save much if you still have to design a new one and build a few of them anyway
« Last Edit: 06/05/2018 12:30 AM by brickmack »

Offline EnigmaSCADA

  • Member
  • Posts: 54
  • Earth
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 0
I can't believe the tax payer is going to be on the hook for this because we need to justify the other government boondoggle that is going to be equally useless. A main course of pork following a main course of pork. Why are we building Orion/SLS if it can't actually go anywhere unless we burn another mountain of cash to make a lunar treehouse for it to visit and do... Ummmm.. "experiments" and stuff. This would all be great comedy if it weren't true.

Offline JH

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 55
If it's still stored, could ICM be used as the PPE?

It's still in storage at NRL under nitrogen purge. Brickmack is right that it wouldn't be a viable option as a PPE, though.

Offline TaurusLittrow

  • Member
  • Posts: 98
  • Pennsylvania, USA
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 30
I listened to the entire MSFC "Roadshow" and still don't understand LV selection. The PPE is slated to be launched on a commercial LV in 2022. Got it.

But what about the other modules? Comanifested on crewed Orion/SLS? Not enough payload capacity on a Block 1.

Does that mean a dedicated Block 1 SLS cargo flight? A commercial launch? Wait for the Block 1B (2023 at the earliest assuming 5-year construction, but highly dubious)?

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 323
  • Likes Given: 155
I listened to the entire MSFC "Roadshow" and still don't understand LV selection. The PPE is slated to be launched on a commercial LV in 2022. Got it.

But what about the other modules? Comanifested on crewed Orion/SLS? Not enough payload capacity on a Block 1.

Does that mean a dedicated Block 1 SLS cargo flight? A commercial launch? Wait for the Block 1B (2023 at the earliest assuming 5-year construction, but highly dubious)?

Block 1B as of now (and all that entails).  It was in the answer to the last question.

But so was PPE at one time, so who knows what will actually happen.

Online MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4264
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1068
  • Likes Given: 2027
Full video from May 24th presentation at Marshall Space Flight Center about the Gateway.


It's a pity the video cuts out mid sentence at the end, at the one hour, 45 minute mark: when the second part of the presentation was still well underway! :(
« Last Edit: 06/13/2018 09:49 AM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline TrevorMonty

http://fiso.spiritastro.net/archivelist.htm
13th June


A fiso talk on gateway. There is no shortage of people wanting to place their science experiments on Gateway. Most are looking at externally mounted payloads. The robotic will be critical for this plus lots of mounting points for payloads. I image airlock would be important as it would allow crew access to external payloads by having robotic arm move payload too and from airlock. EVAs are probably best avoided where possible.

There was also demand for tug to transport payloads eg cubesats, smallsat even small landers , between gateway and LLO. One idea is to use version of ISS cargo vehicle, once its delivered cargo to gateway, carry onto LLO. A SEP Cygnus would be well capable of this, probably need SEP upgrade for gateway missions anyway.
Being able to deliver something like Moon Express 250kg MX1 lander to LLO opens up few possibilities. Would have enough DV to go to surface pickup a sample and return it to gateway, alternatively do a few surface hops.





Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2611
  • Likes Given: 3346
Article on SpaceNews about former NASA astronaut Terry Virts, who was at the June 18 National Space Council meeting, disagreeing that we need the LOP-G station. From the article:

Quote
Appearing on a panel during the meeting at the White House, Terry Virts said that the proposed Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, a human-tended facility in orbit around the moon, wasnít an effective next step in human spaceflight beyond Earth orbit after the International Space Station.

ďIt essentially calls for building another orbital space station, a skill my colleagues and I have already demonstrated on the ISS,Ē he said. ďGateway will only slow us down, taking time and precious dollars away from the goal of returning to the lunar surface and eventually flying to Mars.Ē

There are also opinions about what we should be doing from other astronauts in the article, some that would merit their own article if Virts hadn't made his comments.

I think for me my feeling about the LOP-G, and even it's predecessor the DSG, is that I don't think the U.S. Government 1) has a well defined goal for this effort, and 2) is not allowing for a competition of ideas on how to accomplish the goal in the most cost-effective and expedient way.

So what are the thoughts on what these astronauts have to say?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2382
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1213
  • Likes Given: 930
The main purpose of LOP-G is to give SLS and Orion something to do. If Congress continues to pay for SLS and Orion, then we might as well use it for something. So far, LOP-G is the best plan. However, Terry Virts has a good point that LOP-G isn't an effective next step.

LOP-G has its uses, but it is another space station. No firm plans for landers or a lunar base. Maybe it can live up to its name and be a gateway for exploration, but that would be at least a decade away. Probably more as there are no firm plans for a Mars ship. Everything is just PowerPoint.

Commercial space knows that putting a Mars vehicle in LEO and getting it ready is the next step. NASA could use SLS or current launch vehicle to assemble a Mars vehicle stack instead of LOP-G. The Company-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named is already building test articles for their Mars program. If all goes well, they'll be on Mars before LOP-G is completed.

Overall issue is that NASA doesn't have a detailed crewed BEO exploration plan. LOP-G is worthwhile, but as part of a comprehensive plan, not the only plan.

Tags: